Narrative: Uber Flouts Regulation
Each narrative page (like this) has a page describing and evaluating the narrative, followed by all the posts on the site tagged with that narrative. Scroll down beyond the introduction to see the posts.
Pittsburgh officials are criticizing Uber’s “one-way” relationship with the city — Quartz (Feb 7, 2017)
The remarks quoted here are very much in keeping with those reported a few weeks back (also by Quartz), but they go a lot further. For one thing, these are on the record comments from senior officials, not sourced reporting based on a public records request. It’s increasingly clear that Pittsburgh officials are fed up with Uber’s attitude as it operates in the city, and this is one of the handful of cities where Uber is supposed to be working most closely with local authorities. That’s not a great sign for Uber’s potential to have good working relationships with other cities going forward, especially as it seeks special dispensation to test autonomous vehicles. Note also this story from the Verge yesterday about Uber’s legal battle with Seattle over unionization.
via Quartz
Uber bows to government pressure and suspends its service in Taiwan – TechCrunch (Feb 2, 2017)
One of those rare occasions when Uber isn’t able to bulldoze its way through local regulations and ultimately gets what it wants (see also Austin, Texas). In this case, it looks like Uber followed its standard playbook of working in a market despite opposition and even fines from a government which wanted better compliance with laws and regulations, but despite some recent concessions wasn’t able to convince the government to let it operate legally. As such, Uber is now backing out of Taiwan, and it’s not clear when it will be allowed back. Uber’s approach ruffles feathers, but it is often able to use pressure from drivers and riders to overturn opposition. Uber often paints those opposing its entry or presence in a market as wanting to thwart progress, and there’s no doubt the Uber experience is often an improvement over what it replaces, but that doesn’t always justify taking a stubborn approach to flouting local regulations, and occasionally that approach backfires. (On the same topic today, Uber is also struggling with regulation in India’s Karnataka province)
via TechCrunch (see also Uber’s blog post)
Uber to Pay $20 Million to Settle FTC Charges on Earnings Claims for Drivers – WSJ (Jan 19, 2017)
Uber has often been willing to flout regulation in order to stake a foothold in a market, at which point it typically turns its customers into advocates and makes arguments about the contribution it’s making to the local economy in a bid to win formal approval from local authorities. This case brought by the FTC alleged that Uber had exaggerated those benefits significantly – it claimed NYC Uber drivers earned a median income of over $90,000, but the FTC found that under 10% of drivers earned that much, for example. Because Uber settled the case without admitting formal wrongdoing, there is no legal confirmation here that Uber lied, but that almost doesn’t matter. To the extent that Uber gets a reputation (accurate or otherwise) for lying about its economic benefits, its whole “better to ask for forgiveness than permission” strategy starts to break down.
via Uber to Pay $20 Million to Settle FTC Charges on Earnings Claims for Drivers – WSJ
Uber asked a lot of Pittsburgh for its self-driving cars, and offered back very little — Quartz (Dec 29, 2016)
As I’ve said previously, Uber has a pretty complex relationship with the municipalities where it operates, often flouting taxi regulations and more recently also self-driving ones. In the case of Pittsburgh, Uber has at least worked with the city, but it now appears that it has been something of a one-way relationship. Ironically, the dynamic here is reminiscent of that between Google Fiber and cities, in which the latter have bent over backwards to help Google, whereas in autonomous driving Google (now Waymo) has been more cooperative, while Uber borrows its Fiber playbook.
via Uber asked a lot of Pittsburgh for its self-driving cars, and offered back very little — Quartz
New Data Reveals Uber’s Economic Impact in France – Uber Under the Hood – Medium (Dec 28, 2016)
Part of Uber’s PR push to counter the narrative that’s developed about its antipathy towards regulation is this kind of stuff, designed to showcase the positive impact Uber has on local economies. This Uber blog post cites a Boston Consulting Group study, and highlights the positive contribution made by Uber and other transportation platforms. Apple has successfully used a similar strategy – citing app developer jobs, for example – in arguing for its own positive economic impact.
via New Data Reveals Uber’s Economic Impact in France – Uber Under the Hood – Medium
Uber moves self-driving cars to Arizona after SF setback – Financial Times (Dec 22, 2016)
Once San Francisco shut the Uber self-driving experiment down for flouting regulations, it was inevitable that it would move elsewhere. Arizona’s governor has courted autonomous driving trials, and is using the incident as a way to score points against neighbor California. But it’s worth remembering these are just 16 cars, and California was merely seeking oversight, not to block Uber here.
via Uber moves self-driving cars to Arizona after SF setback
Uber stops San Francisco self-driving pilot as DMV revoked registrations | TechCrunch (Dec 22, 2016)
This seemed inevitable, and you have to wonder what Uber was trying to prove here. Uber’s cavalier attitude towards regulation has generally served it well, but I’ve felt ever since this imbroglio started that this was a step too far – fighting the taxi lobby is one thing, but rejecting oversight of potentially dangerous technology is quite another.
via Uber stops San Francisco self-driving pilot as DMV revoked registrations | TechCrunch
Uber plans to keep its self-driving cars on San Francisco roads despite DMV’s demand to stop – Recode (Dec 16, 2016)
This story has been characteristic of Uber’s disregard for regulations, which in the past have mostly been designed to protect the taxi lobby, but with self-driving cars moves into the realm of protecting drivers, passengers, and other road users. I suspect Uber will get a lot less sympathy from its users over these issues, and this approach will eventually backfire.